Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China.
Lupus. 2012 Sep;21(10):1088-97. doi: 10.1177/0961203312451202. Epub 2012 Jul 9.
The autoantibodies against C1q (anti-C1q) have been reported in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In the past decade, though there were increasing studies suggesting it is relatively specific in lupus nephritis (LN), its overall diagnostic value in LN has not been evaluated. The meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of autoantibodies against C1q in patients with LN, and to provide more precise evidence of a correlation between anti-C1q antibodies and activity of LN. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases and contacted authors if necessary. A total of 25 studies including 2,502 patients with SLE and 1,317 with LN met our inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. Among all 25 studies, 22 studies were available for comparison between SLE with and without LN, and 9 studies compared anti-C1q between patients with active and inactive LN. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was used to summarize comprehensive test performance. The QUADAS tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. For the diagnosis of LN, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of anti-C1q were 0.58 (0.56-0.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]), 0.75 (0.72-0.77, 95% CI), 2.60 (2.06-3.28, 95% CI), 0.51 (0.41-0.63, 95% CI), and 6.08 (3.91-9.47, 95% CI) respectively. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.7941. For comparison between active and inactive LN, the weighted sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.74 (0.68-0.79, 95% CI), 0.77 (0.71-0.82, 95% CI), 2.91 (1.83-4.65, 95% CI), 0.33 (0.19-0.56, 95% CI), and 10.56 (4.56-24.46, 95% CI) respectively. The AUC was 0.8378. In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates that anti-C1q antibodies have relatively fair sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of LN, suggesting that the presence of anti-C1q antibodies may be a valuable adjunct for predicting LN and assessing renal activity.
抗 C1q 自身抗体(抗 C1q)已在系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)患者中报道。在过去的十年中,尽管越来越多的研究表明它在狼疮肾炎(LN)中相对特异,但尚未评估其在 LN 中的总体诊断价值。进行了荟萃分析以定量评估 LN 患者抗 C1q 自身抗体的诊断准确性,并为抗 C1q 抗体与 LN 活动之间的相关性提供更精确的证据。我们检索了 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库,并在必要时联系了作者。共有 25 项研究符合纳入本荟萃分析的标准,共纳入 2502 例 SLE 患者和 1317 例 LN 患者。在所有 25 项研究中,22 项研究可用于比较 SLE 伴和不伴 LN,9 项研究比较了活动期和非活动期 LN 患者之间的抗 C1q。综合受试者工作特征(SROC)曲线用于总结全面的检测性能。QUADAS 工具用于评估研究的质量。对于 LN 的诊断,抗 C1q 的汇总敏感性和特异性、阳性似然比(PLR)、阴性似然比(NLR)和诊断比值比(DOR)分别为 0.58(0.56-0.61,95%置信区间[95%CI])、0.75(0.72-0.77,95%CI)、2.60(2.06-3.28,95%CI)、0.51(0.41-0.63,95%CI)和 6.08(3.91-9.47,95%CI)。SROC 曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.7941。对于活动期和非活动期 LN 的比较,加权敏感性、特异性、PLR、NLR 和 DOR 分别为 0.74(0.68-0.79,95%CI)、0.77(0.71-0.82,95%CI)、2.91(1.83-4.65,95%CI)、0.33(0.19-0.56,95%CI)和 10.56(4.56-24.46,95%CI)。AUC 为 0.8378。总之,本荟萃分析表明,抗 C1q 抗体在 LN 的诊断中具有相对较好的敏感性和特异性,提示抗 C1q 抗体的存在可能是预测 LN 和评估肾脏活动的有价值的辅助手段。